The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-03-01

Section 55l5, which is chiefly relied upon as
authorizing the examination before the Com
Il as follows
Every officer of election at which any Repre-
sentative Delegate in Congress voted for whether
such officer of election be appointed created by or
under law any authority of the United States by
under any State, Territorial district municipal law
authority, who negects refuses to perform any
duty in regard to such election required of him by
any law of the United States, of any State Ter
ritory thereof: who violates any duty imposed
who knowingly does any acts thereby unauthorized
with intent to affect any such election the result
thereof or who frauduiently makes any false cerif
Gates of the result of such election in regard to such
Representative or Delegate; or who withholds,
ceals destroys any certificate record required
by law respecting the election of such Representative
or Delegate; or who negects or yefuses to make and
return such certificate required by law; who aids
officer to do any act by this any of the preceding
sections made crime to omit to do any duty the
omission of which is by this any of such sections
made crime. attempts to do so, shall be punished
as prescribed in Section 4511.
''Section 4, Article I, of the Constitution of
the United States, provides that, The time,
place and manner of holding elections for Sena-
tors and Representatives, shall be prescribed in
each State by the Legislature thereof, but Con-
gress may, at any time. by law. make alter
such regulations, except as to the place of choos-
ing Senator'S The Constitution confers upon
Congress ample power to legisate for the pro-
lection and purity Of elections for Representa-
tives in Congress, whether such elections be for
Representatives alone or in conjunction with the
selection of State and county officers. 1t is to
be steadily borne in mind that the purpose of
all such legislation is the securing of an honest
result so far as the election of members of Con-
gress is concerned Congress may enact statutes
containing specific regulations to accomplish
this end, or it may adopt the laws of the States
far as they relate to the election of congress
sional Representatives, and thus, and to
that extent, make the State cleo
ton officers federal officers but it can go
further 1t does not follow because Congress
legislate for the protection and purity of
elections for Representative YES in Congress- that it
may assume full control of all elections at which
such Represent atives are chosen in conjunction
with State and county officers. The mere fact that
a Representative in Congress is voted for at
an election of State and county officers does not
authorize Congress to regulate such election III
matters which in no wise relate to affect the
result 80 far as it concerns the United States.
1t has no more right to regulate the election of
State and county officers under those crcum-
stances than it would have if no Representative
in Congress were voted for, and it has not at
tempted to do so.
1.-THE jurisdiction of the federal courts in the
enforcement of these statutes depends alto
gether upon something having been done or
omitted which has affected might affect the
result of an election for Representative in Con-
gress. The facts stated in the affidavit, in con-
nection with the admissions of counsel in the
course of the argument. show that the result of
the election was not affected unless it was by
the muLlldIlO0 OIL the papers SOielY ana eX-
clusively in the statements of the vote for
oner and criminal Judge. 1t is not pretended
that the tally-papers We're mutilated, changed or
forged in any other respect or that any of the
tally papers, poll books or ballots were removed
from their proper place of custody The alleged
offense against the United States consists wholly
IN the alteration of the statements of the votes
for coroner and criminal judge, as contained III
the tally papers
''It is claimed by counsel for the government
that the jurisdiction of the federal courts is
plete if anything is done omitted which
amounts to offense against the State that it is
sufficient to give jurisdiction thata Representative
in Congress was voted for at the election where
it is done omitted, and that it is not necessary
to show that the act SO done omitted had any
influence whatsoever on the election Of Repre-
sentative in Congress or the result thereof. It
is Eot claimed that Congress has authority to in
terfere with a State election at which no
Representative in Congress is voted for, and
yet it is claimed that the mere fact that such
Representative is voted for at an election of
State and county officers makes all offenses
against the State. in connection with such cleo
ton, offenses against the United States although
the acts constituting the offense have in wise
Influenced the result of the election of such Rep
resentative. and could have influence it.
Ii this view be correct; If one personates another
in voting for coroner only, or accepts bride ta
-ote for coroner only. at any election where a
Representative in Congress is voted for, his do
ing becomes an offense against the United
more; if the federal government has jurisdiction
in such cases its jurisdiction is paramount and
exclusive if Congress fit to assert it, and il
may therefore assume the exclusive control of
the election of State and county officers, where
they are held at the same time and In conjuuc
ton with the election of Representative in
Congress, and GUST the State courts of their
jurisdiction. 1t was said on the argument that
the only way for the State to avoid such con-
diton of things is to hold its elections at sepa-
rate time and place.
ut was broadly stated in the argument that
every act of fraud and corruption in any such
election must necessarily have some influence
on the election of Representative in Congress,
although the precise influence which the altera-
ton of this vote for coroner and criminal judge
has actually had upon the election of such Rep
resentative il this case was not indicated. But
| il was asserted to be the object Of the federal
legislation to Danish all demoralizing influences,
actual potential, from elections where Repre-
| sentatives in Congress are voted for. This rea.
| soning would apply we'll to those elections
| where separate ballots and baot-boxes, tally
papers and poll booka are provided for the State
and federal Offices that are voted for and 10 the
| fraudulent conduct of the officers of elections
and voters with reference to either. The effect
! of such fraud and corruption is too remote to
| affect the election Of a Represe NATIVE in Con
| gress within the meaning of the statute.
I'm discussing and constituting the sections
now under consideration the Supreme Court OF
| the United States. in ex parte Siebold, 100 e.
| D., 81, say:
In what we have said it must be rememb ered tina
| we are dealing only with the subject of elections o.
Representatives to Congress If for its conven
fence State fit to elect State and county officer
at the same time and in conjunction with the election
of Representatives Congress will not be thereby de
prved of the right to make regulations in reference
| the latter We do not mean to say, however, tina
for any acts of the officers of election having excl
sve reference to the election of State county off
GERS, they will be amenabe to federal jurisdiction:
do we understand that the enactments of Congress
/ TO smell
acts
"Under the construction given the statutes b,
counsel for the government it is plain that a
| such an election there would be no acts of thu
officers of election having exclusive reference t.
| the election of State or county officers and tn
axarnrtiox of than from hilitx to III